i've read the Metcalf article several times and see nothing to complain about. Nothing in that article rises to the level of Zumbo's support for an "assault weapons" ban.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment says what SCOTUS says it says. Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights:

Quote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55

Opinion of the Court
arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
——————

Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights:

True, and that's something Glenn and Blanca have argued well.

However, it won't do for us to claim that the Founders meant for there to be no restrictions on the exercise of the right whatsoever. That's a popular view around the blogosphere and the rallies, but history just doesn't back it up. Nor do we do our cause any good by claiming as much.

That said, Metcalf made a poor case.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

However, it won't do for us to claim that the Founders meant for there to be no restrictions on the exercise of the right whatsoever. That's a popular view around the blogosphere and the rallies, but history just doesn't back it up. Nor do we do our cause any good by claiming as much.

I disagree.

I understand and I accept that the 2A says what nine people in black robes agree (not necessarily unanimously) to say it means. But to say that arguing that "shall not be infringed" really means "shall not be infringed" does not strike me as hurting our cause.

Let's consider LawDog's cake, and the erosion of our 2A gun rights as a result of successive waves of "compromise" under which our side gained nothing in return for having lost much. My view is that it's time to push back with this "compromise" schtick. You want a compromise, Mr. Anti-gunner? Here's a compromise for ya -- we'll stop arguing for NO regulations (based on the plain language of the 2A, irrespective of legal precedent) when you stop trying to curtail all private ownership of firearms, and let things get back to a reasonable facsimile of the way the world operated prior to [1968] [1934] [arbitrary date of your choice].

That, to me, is the point of continuing to argue that the 2A does not allow for ANY regulation, because "regulation" is synonymous with "infringement." The more we can push the anti's back on their heels and make them WORK to justify what they've already got, the less time, energy and money they'll be able to expend on still further "infringements."

This unfortunate episode is, perhaps, the logical consequence of a publishing industry in which "editor" has become a misnomer, in that basically the magazines no longer do ANY "editing." They don't seem to proof what their author's contribute, and they don't seem to even read it to see if it fits in with the magazine's overall editorial stance or perceived reader base. In trying to "do more with less," the magazines have reduced (or held the line on) the cost of publication by eliminating real editors (defined -- by me -- as people who actually perform editing), taking whatever their authors send in electronically, and pushing it directly to layout ... with NO critical overview.

Small wonder the print magazines are so full of garbage. And the publishers wonder why they're losing subscribers ...

...Personally, I don't get the witch hunt. Are we as a culture so thin-skinned that we can't afford some debate from time to time?

I agree. Let's reflect on the fact that essentially the gun community's excoriation of Metcalf is its own form of political correctness.

And we still need to accept the notion that there will be some level of gun control. That is a political reality. And we need to be at the table to protect our interests in the political arena. That means we need to be able to make deals. If we are not at the table "it" will be done to us.

However, I continue to urge that we be cautious about discussing strategic matters in public. We don't want to bid against ourselves.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is infringement in and of itself.

But that's just me ... .

Metcalf claims to have taught constitutional law. So does Obama. 'Nuf said.

Metcalf actually pooh-poohs the idea that regulation is "by definition" infringement. I disagree. I have stated innumerable times that regulation is by definition infringement, and I stand by that statement. One need only look up the definitions of the two words to see that.

Definitions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary

regulate
Syllabification: (reg·u·late)
Pronunciation: /ˈregyəˌlāt/

verb
[with object]

control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly:a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations:the organization that regulates fishing in the region

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:his legal rights were being infringed [no object]:I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy.

Surely, if one has a "right" that "shall not be infringed," one should be entitled to the free and full exercise of that right. If regulations do not limit or encroach on the exercise of that right, how else could one describe what regulations do?

16 hours of training might be a good standard, but only if it's "good" training? And that's not an infringement? Texas has required 16 hours of training for a number of years. Pennsylvania requires zero. Do statistics support a proposition that holders of concealed carry licenses in PA are significantly less safe than those in TX? Frankly, IMHO Metcalf is showing elitist tendencies. And where does that get us?

"I'm the only person in this room who's qualified to handle this Glock fowtay." BANG!

I agree. Let's reflect on the fact that essentially the gun community's excoriation of Metcalf is its own form of political correctness.

This might be so ... if Metcalf had put forth a cogent argument based on a somewhat correct reading of the Second Amendment. However, he misstates and misinterprets the language of the 2A so pervasively, not working in even a remote correlation either with the writings of the Founders (such as The Federalist papers) OR the contemporary interpretation as reflected int he Heller and McDonald decisions, that his whingings cannot possibly be accepted as a starting point for reasoned debate, because you can't start a reasoned debate on a fundamentally flawed base premise.

Political correctness is, essentially, saying, "We don't like what you're saying, so goodbye." This isn't that. This is an almost pure case of "You're such an idiot you don't even know what you're talking about."

Was it Mark Twain, Will Rogers, or Groucho Marx who advocated "Never interrupt someone while he's in the process of proving that he's an idiot"?

Political correctness is, essentially, saying, "We don't like what you're saying, so goodbye."

Which is, in the simplest analysis exactly what happened.

People didn't like what he was saying so he got fired--that's the bottom line. Whether or not he knows what he is talking about is a topic for debate and given that SCOTUS generally agrees with him on the subject, it will be fairly difficult to demonstrate that he's clueless.

Sorry but political correctness comes from Communist policy and it refers to State control of what is acceptable. The free market saying we don't like your product us not political correctness. Not one person here yammered for govt regulation on what Metcalf or anyone else has to say.

Metcalf claims to have taught constitutional law. So does Obama. 'Nuf said.

Metcalf actually pooh-poohs the idea that regulation is "by definition" infringement. I disagree. I have stated innumerable times that regulation is by definition infringement, and I stand by that statement. One need only look up the definitions of the two words to see that.

Definitions:

Surely, if one has a "right" that "shall not be infringed," one should be entitled to the free and full exercise of that right. If regulations do not limit or encroach on the exercise of that right, how else could one describe what regulations do?

16 hours of training might be a good standard, but only if it's "good" training? And that's not an infringement? Texas has required 16 hours of training for a number of years. Pennsylvania requires zero. Do statistics support a proposition that holders of concealed carry licenses in PA are significantly less safe than those in TX? Frankly, IMHO Metcalf is showing elitist tendencies. And where does that get us?

"I'm the only person in this room who's qualified to handle this Glock fowtay." BANG!

The real chicken bone is that Metcalf makes his statements in an environment overwhelmed with regulation. Maybe if he landed on planet Zicone where there is no regulation it might make sense to open debate on whether gun regulation is acceptable and how much.

Unfortunately, Metcalf is stuck on planet earth in the USA and we don't need gun writers bleating about the need for regulation. I have more than enough heaped on my head already, thank you.

: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Quite obviously what Metcalf wrote offended the political sensibilities of many in the gun community. And the reaction was to stifle rational discussion of some important social, political and legal issues.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Does anyone seriously expect us to take what they have to say as a valid opinion, when they start their opinion off with a totally false premise?

There are much better ways to say what he wanted, without sounding like the village idiot.

After quoting the 2A, Metcalf then writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Metcalf

Note carefully: Those last four words say "shall not be infringed." They do not say "shall not be regulated." "Well regulated" is, in fact, the initial criterion of the amendment itself.

You really want me to believe that we are going to have another discourse on the militia thing again? We all know, or at least we all should know, that "regulated" did not have the meaning then, that we use today. Heller put that one to rest. I suppose Metcalf just didn't do his due diligence with regard to this landmark case. But I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief and read on?

Sorry. Whatever else might have merited a read, Metcalf did something naughty with the pooch. And right from the gate!

The fact that Jim Bequette, in order to save G&A from a RECOIL fiasco, responded so quickly (even to owning up on passing the Op-Ed by retiring early), shows several things. Not the least of which is Metcalf was out and out wrong headed in the way he tried to present necessary regulation.

Sounding like an uneducated anti-gunner with his first two paragraphs, was not the way to do that (the second paragraph with the "Fire!" canard - and yes, I'm well aware of what Justice Holmes was referring to).

One cannot have rational discussion, when the discussion was predicated upon falsehoods to begin with. I therefore disagree with those of you that are calling for anything other than Metcalf's proverbial head. We now have that. Good riddence.

... if Metcalf had put forth a cogent argument based on a somewhat correct reading of the Second Amendment. However, he misstates and misinterprets the language of the 2A so pervasively, not working in even a remote correlation either with the writings of the Founders (such as The Federalist papers) OR the contemporary interpretation as reflected int he Heller and McDonald decisions, that his whingings cannot possibly be accepted as a starting point for reasoned debate, because you can't start a reasoned debate on a fundamentally flawed base premise...

I'm sorry I missed this earlier, and I agree.

Much of the reaction to Metcalf has been a knee jerk response to perceive heresy. A more reasonable reaction would have been to rationally call him out on his specious reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Norris

...You really want me to believe that we are going to have another discourse on the militia thing again? We all know, or at least we all should know, that "regulated" did not have the meaning then, that we use today. Heller put that one to rest...

And yes, that is much more to the point. Metcalf based his argument on a faulty foundation.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Politically correct:Quite obviously what Metcalf wrote offended the political sensibilities of many in the gun community. And the reaction was to stifle rational discussion of some important social, political and legal issues.

Actually I am correct. If you go beyond the simplistic M-w.com definition and look into its origins.

"Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly in terms of attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely to try to make older ones taboo. "

Actually I am correct. If you go beyond the simplistic M-w.com definition and look into its origins. ...

Origin isn't necessarily equivalent to current usage. So you're still wrong.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

There are much better ways to say what he wanted, without sounding like the village idiot.

That is a problem. The fact that a lot of what he said was consistent with SCOTUS rulings is virtually cancelled out by the fact that he supports his comments with a clearly fallacious basis.

"Well regulated" in the context of the amendment had nothing to do with regulation in the legal sense, making his use of regulated to support regulation an equivocation fallacy. On top of that, "well regulated" in the amendment clearly refers to the militia, not explicitly to the possession or use of firearms which means that even without the equivocation fallacy, there's still a problem with his reasoning.

Most of you seem to be saying it was the quality of his argument, but the average gun person is neither a Constitutional scholar nor even reads these articles.

Even if Metcalf or some author had perfectly made the point that you can't control a conversation that you refuse to have, the howling masses would have still been calling for blood. It is a lot like the way Communists lie to themselves.

This whole thing reminds me of parents who is think their kids wont get AIDS or pregnant if they keep them out of health class.

We've just seen proof that gun people aren't adult enough to admit that EVERYTHING is regulated. So the decisions about how guns are regulated will be made by people who don't have their heads in the sand.

What he said wasn't that unthinkable at all, in my opinion. It was probably ill-advised and his reasoning wasn't sound even if a lot of what he said was true. Not unthinkable--it just made some very vocal people angry and they were able to mobilize an effective attack.

Nothing he said warranted firing him in my opinion. And I'm not even a Dick Metcalf fan.

Furthermore, in my opinion, he wasn't fired for what he wrote. He was fired because G&A didn't think it could weather the fallout of standing behind him. Maybe that's a fine distinction to some, but it's an important one from my perspective. What I'm saying is that I don't really believe G&A was outraged at what he said and got rid of him because of their outrage/indignation/whatever. They threw him under the bus to save themselves when the fallout from the article turned out to be much worse than they anticipated.

Does it matter what GA owners think? The point is that an article like this isn't going to be tolerated. Whether one guy gets fired or one magazine goes under, the thought police are going to shut up pundit from our side that doesn't deify 2a.

This is the same reason the GOP is killing itself. It's a suicide pact.

Origin isn't necessarily equivalent to current usage. So you're still wrong.

It is whatever you say it is Frank! Historical origin less than 100 years ago is important to me. But it is a small point that is a distraction from the thread.

Getting back on topic...

Metcalf is the one who brought up gun regulation and used terrible examples and explanations to make his point. It was a disservice to gun owners and is already being used by the antis in their public statements. We have a ton of regulations already, and Dick implied we need more. He was not trying to have a discussion. He talked disparagingly of other gun owners as unsafe rubes and held himself up as a Constitutional scholar. That carries responsibility.

Metcalf set the stage himself, it is not the responsibility of those he insulted to try to make lemonade of it for him. If he had been respectful, used good references and explored ideas I think we would have read his article differently.

I can't for the life of me think of one more regulation we need about guns. Can you?

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.